4.5 Article

Cyclic Loading Test of Unbonded and Bonded Posttensioned Precast Segmental Bridge Columns with Circular Section

期刊

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000807

关键词

Quasi-static; Cyclic loading; Precast construction; Segmental column; Unbonded posttensioned; Bonded posttensioned; Energy dissipation; Circular section

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51208268]
  2. Fund of National Engineering and Research Center for Highways in Mountain Area [GSGZJ-2012-04]
  3. Offshore Impact and Safety Engineering Priority Subjects Open Fund of Zhejiang Province [zj1224]
  4. Discipline Research Fund Project of Ningbo University [XKL14D2070]
  5. K. C. Wong Magna Fund at Ningbo University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Four 1/4-scale precast segmental bridge columns (PSBC) with different reinforcement types and arrangements and one monolithic reference column (MRC) were designed and tested under cyclic quasi-static loading. Both UPC (PSBC with unbonded tendons only) and UPCE (PSBC with unbonded tendons and bonded mild steel bars) use unbonded posttensioned (PT) strands to connect the segments. Bonded energy dissipation (ED) bars were added in UPCE to increase the ED ability of unbonded PSBC. Specimens BPC (PSBC with fewer bonded PT bars) and BPCII (PSBC with more bonded PT bars) use bonded PT bars to combine the segments together. The unbonded length was set in ED bars to delay the low-cycle fatigue damage. Test results showed PSBC only has minor concrete cracks or crushing at lower joints. The unbonded PT PSBC with ED bars had higher lateral strength, lower residual drift, and comparable ED with MRC. The bonded PT bar PSBC with appropriate bar arrangement also showed high lateral strength and medium energy-dissipation ability. However, bonded PT PSBC experienced large PT stress loss, which leads to a residual drift of 3% when unloading from 6% drift. (C) 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据